GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Chapter 10 Capacity.

GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL

Chapter 10

Capacity


• Married Women

• Companies

• Convicts

• Mentally Ill– Imperial Loan Co v Stone (1892)

• Drunk– White v McCoey (1892)


Infants (Complex)

• At common law, only certain contracts are entirely valid– Contracts for necessaries– Beneficial contracts of service

• All else are voidable– But contract for necessarys can be enforced

against infant on reasonable terms only


Neccessaries

• Common law AND Statute (but nothing really turns on this)

• S.2 of 1893 says where necessary goods supplied to infant – bound to pay R. price for them…defined “suitable to the condition in life of such infant…and to his actual requirement at the time of the sale and delivery”


• Skrine v Gordon– Horse for hunting not necessary – luxury

• Ryder v Wombell– Jewelled cufflinks

• Nash v Inman– Fancy waistcoats (if has enough clothes already)

• Prokopetz v Richardsons– Motor boat


• Vehicle required for work – yes– First Charter Finance Bank v Musclow

• Books for students– Soon v Wilson

• Note that services not touched by s.2 may be necessary– Chapple v Cooper

• Items which an individual cannot reasonably exist without – food, lodgings etc – matters for “proper cultivation of mind” – instruction in art, trade, education etc….

• Legal advice for infant– Helps v Clayton


Beneficial Contracts of Service

• Doyle v White City Stadium (1935)

• De Franceso v Barnum (1890)

• Toronto Hockey Club v Tonelli (1979)


• Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers)– P was a ne’er do well – was on national assistance –

publicity surrounding that led to book deal– Not nice about his dad in it…wanted to repudiate K

with publishers – said not to his benefit as potentially libellous

– CA held he was bound to it – the $$$ he would make outweighed potential for libel – gave him a start in journalism – Denning MR dissented


• … Michael Chaplin had no daring exploits to relate. He had led, as he said, a Bohemian life. What benefit would it be for him to have his life story made public? … I cannot think that a contract is for the benefit of a young man if it is to be a means of purveying scandalous information. Certainly not if it brings shame and disgrace on others; invades the privacy of family life, and exposes him to claims of libel. It is not for his good that he should exploit his discreditable conduct for money, no matter how much he is paid for it. If that were the nature of the contract, it would be better for him to take his mother's advice: "Get a job and go to work."


Summary

• By this point – we see two types of contract create “no worries”

• All other contracts are, in theory, voidable at the option of the infant

• But we need to make two more divisions


• (1) K which benefit which impose recurring obs (land, insurance, partnerships etc) – can be avoided but require positive act before majority or within a R time after – DEFAULT – ENF

• (2) All other contracts – enforceable by him not against him unless positively affirmed within R time of coming of age…DEFAULT – UNENF


Common Law / Sale of Goods Act 1893

All contracts are voidable at option of infant except

K’s for necessaries

Where necessaries are provided the infant is bound to pay a reasonable price. For goods, see s.2 1893. For services see Fawcett v Smethurst

Two categories to distinguish (para 3-33)

K’s which benefit, but which impose recurring obs – if infant wants to avoid – must repudiate by positive act before coming of age or soon after – enforceable by default

All other K’s – enforceable by infant, but not against him unless he positively affirms within R time of attaining majority – unenforceable by default

Beneficial K’s of service


Statute - Painful

• Infants Relief Act, 1874– S.1 – renders absolutely void – all K’s (other

than for necessaries) where infant agrees to purchase goods or receive a loan

– Only about k’s for goods or loan and those being not necessary (i.e. luxuries etc)

– Common law just said such K’s were not voidable at option of infant…i.e. he could enforce if he wanted – not under s.1 - void


S.2 – getting worse

• Contract made during infancy which is affirmed on majority cannot be enforced against infant

• So where infant expressly affirms K on majority – he can enforce, but can’t be enforced against him?


LRC Recommendations

• Page 43

• Enf by infant – not by other side

• Matters to be dealt with in court on case-by-case basis

• Advantages?

• Constitutional problems?

GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Chapter 10 Capacity.

Documents

Transcript of GRIFFITH COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL LAW SCHOOL Chapter 10 Capacity.